RE: Winter Idea......Comment

RE: Winter Idea......Comment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

Senno -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 8:59:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso OK, summarizing this and other threads. Phase 1. When playing Axis, you get stalled because there is no way to break the carpet wall made of infinite Soviet hordes. Game flawed. Phase 2. When playing Soviets, there is no way to stop a human Axis player with your CV 1=1 ants. Game flawed. Phase 3. When playing Axis, there is no way to prevent the vaporization of your army in blizzard. Game flawed. Phase 4 ??? Last week I bought F1-2006 for my PS3. Driving with Fernando Alonso in Renault I consistently reach the Finish flag in the bottom part of the participants (Historically Alonso won that year the world championship with Renault). Conclusions: please tick the correct one A) Game is crap B) My driving skills are crap. I should improve. Perhaps I should learn how to optimize the aerodynamic load. Alfonso, I'll repeat my earlier question: Please show me one HVH AAR where the axis player has successfully defended the blizzard. If you want to define "defended" as generously as possible and just find me a HVH AAR where the axis player reached spring of 1942 with an intact army capable of strategic offensives, that's fine too. I submit, however, that there is no such beast on these forums. If I couldn't defend in the blizzard, but other, better, players could, then it'd be fair to say "its a problem with the player not the game". In this case though, I've yet to see any evidence that any axis player can defend the blizzard, which implies, to me at least, that its a problem with the game. I call your "successfully defended" and raise you "has any player played through the blizzard and posted the AAR?" Seems that most give up the ghost prior to being able to make the determination? No one has gotten to Spring '42 and posted it. We don't know if they are at 55% in AGC and AGN to launch their AGS attacks or what their condition is. Which leaves me with Alfonso... How do you know? I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs.

pat.casey -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:03:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso <snip> True, there is no AAR of succesful blizzard defense. Your proof that this is undoable is that nobody did it yet? Could it be that nobody is capable of doing that before passing through 3-4 blizzards? BigAnorak said he could survive. At this point in the game's lifecycle, yes, I'm willing to say that if nobody has figured out a viable blizzard defense yet there probably isn't one. Certainly, one can cling to the belief that continued experimentation will eventually identify a solution, but to my mind that's about as likely as the belief that if I can just get the right experimental conditions I can turn lead into gold. As for BigAnorak, he has apparently changes his mind and no longer thinks the blizzard is properly balanced. From this house rules thread: The more I look at the threads and AARs relating to the infamous First Winter, and the more I analyse my own playing of the game, the more I feel there needs to be some limit on the SU's ability to attack and advance during the blizzard. If you look at what happened historically you may start to understand why the game engine sometimes struggles to cope with the pressure put upon it.

alfonso -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:12:12 PM)
How many AARs have reached December 1941 and then June 1942 after the experience bug was corrected? And only to December 1941?

pat.casey -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Senno I call your "successfully defended" and raise you "has any player played through the blizzard and posted the AAR?" Seems that most give up the ghost prior to being able to make the determination? No one has gotten to Spring '42 and posted it. We don't know if they are at 55% in AGC and AGN to launch their AGS attacks or what their condition is. Which leaves me with Alfonso... How do you know? I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs. To my analysis there are two classes of AARs out there right now, both of which lead to the same conclusion, that the blizzard is overpowered. The vast majority of HVH AARs just plain stop after about 3 turns of blizzard and the axis players beg off and surrender. The players of these games don't see any hope of salvaging them so they abandon rather than try. Then you have a small minority who slog through the blizzards in the interest of science, like qball, who's made it almost to February, albeit without much of an army left. As a player, the large number of abandoned games concerns me more than anything else, because it tells me that axis players don't only find the blizzard unwinnable, they also find it not fun. So not fun, in fact, that the abandon the game rather than sit there and get clubbed like baby seals.

Mynok -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:15:05 PM)
Both 2ndACR and Haudrauf1962 posted AARs that went all the way through the blizzards. The Germans were simply unable to mount offensives at all due to the lack of decent infantry. Those two I believe were both influential in getting the morale and experience changes made.

Senno -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:16:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso <snip> True, there is no AAR of succesful blizzard defense. Your proof that this is undoable is that nobody did it yet? Could it be that nobody is capable of doing that before passing through 3-4 blizzards? BigAnorak said he could survive. At this point in the game's lifecycle, yes, I'm willing to say that if nobody has figured out a viable blizzard defense yet there probably isn't one. Certainly, one can cling to the belief that continued experimentation will eventually identify a solution, but to my mind that's about as likely as the belief that if I can just get the right experimental conditions I can turn lead into gold. As for BigAnorak, he has apparently changes his mind and no longer thinks the blizzard is properly balanced. From this house rules thread: The more I look at the threads and AARs relating to the infamous First Winter, and the more I analyse my own playing of the game, the more I feel there needs to be some limit on the SU's ability to attack and advance during the blizzard. If you look at what happened historically you may start to understand why the game engine sometimes struggles to cope with the pressure put upon it. I don't accept your contention. But for the moment, let's just say that I do. Given how history played out should there be a viable defense available? There are 2 players involved, your successful defense = unsucessful Soviet attacks. And no one can argue the Soviets weren't successful over large swaths of the front. Where does the balance lie? What do you consider a viable defense, all Soviet attacks defeated and not one step back? And honestly "continued experimentation"... There hasn't been much with Beta 5 & 6. We still don't have an AAR that goes through Summer '42.... And no offense to Q-Ball, I have enjoyed his AAR, but ComradeP is telling him he isn't forming his defense correctly in the AAR. Maybe the testers should just put forth their 'successful defense" rather than just giving hints? I'd think that people would enjoy finding the answers themselves, but in the face of "it hasn't been done, so it can't be done" maybe that would be more help. I think people's frustration is approaching the not playing the game anymore level more and more. Oleg is there, but he has the zeal of the newly converted going on (j/k Oleg)[;)]. So maybe some solid communication would be better. quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Both 2ndACR and Haudrauf1962 posted AARs that went all the way through the blizzards. The Germans were simply unable to mount offensives at all due to the lack of decent infantry. Those two I believe were both influential in getting the morale and experience changes made. Right. And both were pre Beta 5/6. And I agreed with ACR about the TOE and Exp bugs. And the armaments bug was somewhere in there. So now I'd like to see more than 1 full game through to Summer '42, hopefully. Or at least 1... And if changes need to be made, fine. But for now, everyone has stopped. Other than BigA and Speedy, anyway.

color -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:21:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case... ...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad? Most Russian casualties in '41 were suffered as captured up to and including the capturing of the pockets at Kiev, Vyazma and Bryansk. Had the Germans gone over to a more defensive stature after this (roughly middle october) and prepared for winter, the big WHAT-IF is how much better they would have been prepared for the russian winter counter attack. Of course, given the sorry state of the russian army after these pockets fell, one can understand the temptation taking moscow presented. BTW, did you know Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow on the 13th of October? It pretty obvious the situation at that point made both combatants feel mostly 'anything' could happen. It should also be noted a very substantial part of the troops for the winter counter-offensive came from fresh divisions released from Siberia & the Far East, as Stalin had solid intel that Japan was not going to attack the Soviet Union. So even thought the russians could maybe have saved a couple of hundred thousands casualties more if the Germans had dropped most of operation Typhoon, I would question how big a difference it would have made to available strength for the winter conter-offensive. And let's not forget the Germans would have spared casualties as well.

pat.casey -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Senno I don't accept your contention. But for the moment, let's just say that I do. Given how history played out should there be a viable defense available? There are 2 players involved, your successful defense = unsucessful Soviet attacks. And no one can argue the Soviets weren't successful over large swaths of the front. Where does the balance lie? What do you consider a viable defense, all Soviet attacks defeated and not one step back? <snip> I think the balance of the winter counteroffensive is the same as the balance of the initial summer blitzkrieg. If the germans do something stupid like push away from their railheads in mud and then get stranded in the bush without prepared positions when the blizzard hits, they should be vulnerable for a counterattack. Historically, the germans did precisely that and they paid the price. A human player, with the advantage of hindsight, will not make the same mistake and shouldn't pay the same price. The flip side of this is also true in that the historical soviets did the germans a number of willing favors by staying put and letting themselves be encircled, leading to the cauldron battles in the summer of 1941. A human player won't do that and will preserve a far greater proportion of the red army than historically happened. So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942. What I see in the game today though are a pair of artificial components designed to produce roughly the outline of the historical first 12 months of the war. The germans are given ahistrically strong assault capabilities in Summer of 1941 to allow for a viable blitzkrief. The soviets are given ahistorically strong assault capabilities in Winter of 1941/42 to allow for a "rollback" of the Wehrmacht high water mark.

Senno -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: color quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case... ...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad? Most Russian casualties in '41 were suffered as captured up to and including the capturing of the pockets at Kiev, Vyazma and Bryansk. Had the Germans gone over to a more defensive stature after this (roughly middle october) and prepared for winter, the big WHAT-IF is how much better they would have been prepared for the russian winter counter attack. Of course, given the sorry state of the russian army after these pockets fell, one can understand the temptation taking moscow presented. BTW, did you know Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow on the 13th of October? It pretty obvious the situation at that point made both combatants feel mostly 'anything' could happen. It should also be noted a very substantial part of the troops for the winter counter-offensive came from fresh divisions released from Siberia & the Far East, as Stalin had solid intel that Japan was not going to attack the Soviet Union. So even thought the russians could maybe have saved a couple of hundred thousands casualties more if the Germans had dropped most of operation Typhoon, I would question how big a difference it would have made to available strength for the winter conter-offensive. And let's not forget the Germans would have spared casualties as well. Right. But in reality a couple months later it was the Soviets with the breathing room and the good "anything could happen" feeling and the Germans with the bad "anything could happen" feeling. Basically, I don't think it should be a walkover for anyone. And there should be no sure fire "a-ha" defense or offense for either side. quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942. Hmm, not far off from what I'd like probably. But I do think it's a design choice made by the Designers that the players feel the desperation that both sides felt, as much as possible in a game anyway. And it was utter, bleak desperation, it seems. That's what I get from reading anyway. And if you iron out the difficulties and have a nice easy time as either side, you definitely won't experience those. BTW, I'm not sure the German units themselves are supermen, as the Soviets achieve those CV's as well, later in the war. We've seen 30 = whatever mech corps a posted, easily the equal of the Panzer Divisions. And the rifle corps and tank corps end up pretty strong as well. The math is unexplained largely though; ie how the final CV (sometimes x10 or even more) is calculated. Leadership, SU's whatever all goes into it. And I'm not really happy with the 1/8th penalty applied in mud. I haven't attacked in mud since the first game I played. But didn't really know about the rule, it was just intuitive. But I digress. And I'm kinda tired of the debate for the weekend, and just want to play. /sigh...

alfonso -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:47:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: color quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey If the axis player is more conservatively deployed than was historically the case... ...then the Soviets would be stronger than was historically the case. So why do you think that Axis strategy should be rewarded? When do you want to commence to dig? In September? Before taking Ukrainia, Moscow, Leningrad? Most Russian casualties in '41 were suffered as captured up to and including the capturing of the pockets at Kiev, Vyazma and Bryansk. Had the Germans gone over to a more defensive stature after this (roughly middle october) and prepared for winter, the big WHAT-IF is how much better they would have been prepared for the russian winter counter attack. Of course, given the sorry state of the russian army after these pockets fell, one can understand the temptation taking moscow presented. BTW, did you know Stalin ordered the evacuation of the Communist Party, the General Staff and various civil government offices from Moscow on the 13th of October? It pretty obvious the situation at that point made both combatants feel mostly 'anything' could happen. It should also be noted a very substantial part of the troops for the winter counter-offensive came from fresh divisions released from Siberia & the Far East, as Stalin had solid intel that Japan was not going to attack the Soviet Union. So even thought the russians could maybe have saved a couple of hundred thousands casualties more if the Germans had dropped most of operation Typhoon, I would question how big a difference it would have made to available strength for the winter conter-offensive. And let's not forget the Germans would have spared casualties as well. Yes, in this you are probably right. But in game terms it is going to be very difficult to recreate that, the chance to rest just after the Kiev, Bryansk and Vyazhma pockets, but just before blizzard hits. Usually the Soviet tall of casualties is more linearly dependant of the date, there are usually smaller pockets than in the real war. I was thinking that digging early would be start digging in September, to have time to build Forts 4

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:53:33 PM)
The central issue is that the game engine is being used to create an historical starting point for 1942. Given few if any Russian players stand and die in droves as they did historically, this creates the issue for the Wehrmacht. An ahistorically strong opponent during the winter who gets the blizzard mechanics and a chance to run riot all along the line. Result looks to be punitive from the Axis point of view. Either the Russian player needs to be forced to stand and fight, rather than fight a well organised delaying action from Minsk to the gates of Moscow (so they are weak when the blizzard mechnaics kick in), or the blizzard needs to be toned down (so the Russian hordes can do less damage). I don't favour tying any player to historical strategies, so there is only one solution left. The Germans couldn't really win in 1941, and were almost certainly finished after Smolensk, but they still inflicted huge numbers of casualites during the 41 campaign. This is the core of the issue. The Germans did about as well as they possibly could have done in 1941. However, the game takes that as the medium in the range of outcomes and canes them during the blizzard to reflect history. However, the Soviet player ignores history from the first turn and the German player can't achieve this medium historically against a competent opponent. Therefore, he gets caned past reality during the blizzard. As ACR has suggested a number of times, just giving the Germans their CV back would be enough. Combined with defensive deployments, a German player could dig in ahead of the blizzards and hold much of what he has won, albeit at a high attritional cost as the cold disables thousands every turn. If they go all out and end up with exhausted Panzer Spearheads with wide open flanks as the weather turns, then they will get annihilated (since I would argue building anything above a level 1 fort from scratch should be impossible when the cold hits). Regards, ID

Skanvak -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 9:55:59 PM)
quote: So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942. Though I totally agree with this expectation, I'd like a simulation to not be designed to give an expected result as it kill exploration of alternative strategy. Beside this expectation is about player of same capability. I have played "Defiant Russia" which I like a lot as a game and see russia destroyed in 41 and in another game, the wermach totaly exploded before winter (the Russian took warsaw). This make strating a game always a good experience. What I mean is that the game average the expected result but is not define or driven by them. I think it is good. Which means that we might not reach the expected result with some players matching. We have to kkep that in mind.

color -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:03:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Senno Right. But in reality a couple months later it was the Soviets with the breathing room and the good "anything could happen" feeling and the Germans with the bad "anything could happen" feeling. Basically, I don't think it should be a walkover for anyone. And there should be no sure fire "a-ha" defense or offense for either side. So let's look at what changed historically (in AGC) since mid october until beginning of december when typhoon was cancelled and the Russians started their counteroffensive, and which are factors the german player can control to some extent. - German troops exhausted, depleted and far from optimal supply railheads. - Not much of defensive positions prepared. - Supply train situation close to collapse only 1/3 to 1/2 of minimum daily dispatches can be made. This combined with Hitlers insistence of first sending ammo and supply for continued advance has the effect of German winter clothing sitting in stores in Germany and not being brought forward. IMHO the above reasons should be important indicators as to what should 'be punished'. There are other factors as well that one should take into account, and that takes effect around december '41 over which a player has no control (mostly related to weather): - Russians get substantial reinforcements from Siberian and easter front troops. Soviets had somewhere close to 60 divisions in reserve for winter counterattack as far as I have read, but I don't have any exact number as to how many came from Siberia/Far East. - German vehicles and weapons fail in the harsh blizzard conditions. - German horses don't stand up to the cold and die en masse. This and inoperable vehicles does further harm to the already pressed german supply situation. - Attrition on Germans due to lack of winter clothing (this IMHO should be linked to the supply situation and if the supply situation is good, attrition should drop to simulate winter clothing being brought forward) - Russian better proficiency at winter war (tactics, organization) - Russian equipment more adapted to winter (weapons, tank thread width & ground clearance)

2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:09:45 PM)
Alfonso, You could start digging in Sept and get level 4 forts, those would last for the most part 1 turn, maybe 2 if you get lucky. And then it is all she wrote. Try breaking some level 4 forts during the Summer 41. Once you see how hard that is, you will wonder why it is so easy to do the same during the blizzard turns. It should be even harder to break level 4 forts in the blizzard. But that is not the case at all. But since you think it is just us, how about posting up some AAR's of your games and show all of us players how it is done. I have tried every strategy I can think of, digging very early, yep. Using linear defense, yep. Hedgehog, yep. Pulled back 100 miles pre blizzard, yep. Only the last one has some usage. It works even better if you pull back farther and create a buffer large enough that the Russian has to waste 4+ turns crossing just to get to you. But once he gets to you, your toast.

karonagames -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:17:44 PM)
quote: I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs Turn 27, and we are getting through roughly a turn a day, so middle of next week should see us at the end of the blizzard. Going into the blizzard we have seen differences in the morale and experience levels compared to the pre 1.03 versions. I am seeing a lot of differences to the tests I was doing between June and November last year. Feedback is going back to Joel each turn.

IronDuke_slith -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:17:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey quote: ORIGINAL: Senno I don't accept your contention. But for the moment, let's just say that I do. Given how history played out should there be a viable defense available? There are 2 players involved, your successful defense = unsucessful Soviet attacks. And no one can argue the Soviets weren't successful over large swaths of the front. Where does the balance lie? What do you consider a viable defense, all Soviet attacks defeated and not one step back? <snip> I think the balance of the winter counteroffensive is the same as the balance of the initial summer blitzkrieg. If the germans do something stupid like push away from their railheads in mud and then get stranded in the bush without prepared positions when the blizzard hits, they should be vulnerable for a counterattack. Historically, the germans did precisely that and they paid the price. A human player, with the advantage of hindsight, will not make the same mistake and shouldn't pay the same price. The flip side of this is also true in that the historical soviets did the germans a number of willing favors by staying put and letting themselves be encircled, leading to the cauldron battles in the summer of 1941. A human player won't do that and will preserve a far greater proportion of the red army than historically happened. So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942. What I see in the game today though are a pair of artificial components designed to produce roughly the outline of the historical first 12 months of the war. The germans are given ahistrically strong assault capabilities in Summer of 1941 to allow for a viable blitzkrief. The soviets are given ahistorically strong assault capabilities in Winter of 1941/42 to allow for a "rollback" of the Wehrmacht high water mark. So much more concise than I was, my compliments. I completely agree. Set the mechanics and the game will play itself, using the engine to recreate the historical winter to create a historical 1942 will always fail because few soviet players will allow themselves to be hit as hard as they were in the historical summer of 41. We already have the first part of this in that no German player (against a comparable Soviet) is likely to achieve the 4.5 million plus casualties the Germans managed historically. Blitzkrieg is not weaker mechancally, but always faces a savvier opponent so is weaker operationally. That said, some of the results tables which seem to rout Soviet units with 2000 casualties without touching the AXIs player strikes me as odd. Either there need to be penalties for the Soviet player abandoning territory without a fight or the blizzard has to be more reflective of reality rather than history. Regards, ID

PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:18:23 PM)
There are a few "what ifs" I would like to see, AAR-wise. 1 - Someone actually do ComradeP's suggestion for a hedgehog/withdrawal defense. All the AARs I have seen seems to be mostly linear or linebacker 2 - A Feldmarschall Von Robin game, where the Axis retreat at least 2 hexes each turn in Blizzard - this would make an interesting snow if the Panzers are nice and comfortable in urban areas. Either of these two, given the present replacement and TOE fixes, would promise an entirely different 1942 - the Soviets would not be as experienced from all the successful attacks of the present, and the Germans would only have the attrition loses to make up (mostly), and the entrenchement problem would be gone as the Soviets are advancing all winter to keep up. Part of this is that for some reason people are arguing as if the Axis are stuck in their rut, they have to advance, then the game must be changes so they can hold in winter with realistic losses, then....recreate 1942 (von Paulus might object)? This is a game, a simulation that allows a wide-ranging set of options. The game is set up on historical parameters, but the options are ours as the players. Go "balls-out" in the Summer and Fall of 1941, then try something else. Those in the 18th Army deep forts in Feb, 1942 found out that level 4 forts could be broken easily by Vlasov and the 2nd Shock Army, why do we need to show that, yes this happens. Ultimately, I have argued that the Soviets can make too many coordinated and supplied attacks. Right now other than house rules I don't see that changing anytime soon - the game allows them to not be constrained by history. So...don't be constrained by history yourself...

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:21:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR You could start digging in Sept and get level 4 forts, those would last for the most part 1 turn, maybe 2 if you get lucky. And then it is all she wrote. Try breaking some level 4 forts during the Summer 41. Once you see how hard that is, you will wonder why it is so easy to do the same during the blizzard turns. It should be even harder to break level 4 forts in the blizzard. But that is not the case at all. I absolutely agree with ACR, my two time opponent as German. First time I just walked through his lines, forts or no forts, Panzers, SS, full divs, regiments, you name it, except for mountain units (including Romanians) everythying else was as if it was made of butter (or snow LOL). There's an AAR somewhere, and in it I didn't even use all my might. I was fooling around, sort of. I wasn't believing how easy it was, as it was my first blizz experience, I didn't even read up the rules, suddenly in front of me were ghosts of former units.... At first I thought he did something wrong and pays the price. In the meantime I've read up on other AARs, and had my own game as German. When the blizzard time in my second game vs ACR came, I simply refused to walk all over him again using those awfully biased rules. So Senno, Alfonso and others, if you wish another blizzard AAR or blizzard experience or whatever, you may ask ACR to take the game over from him and I will be glad to provide several turns of right-clicking for your (dis)pleasure. Or we may continue our game and describe it if ACR is willing to suffer for science (I know I would not be, in case where I play German).

pat.casey -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:22:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Skanvak quote: So what I'd expect to play out in a game without artificial modifiers would be a weaker blitzkrieg, followed by a limited winter offensive, followed by a german attempt to win the war in 1942. Though I totally agree with this expectation, I'd like a simulation to not be designed to give an expected result as it kill exploration of alternative strategy. Beside this expectation is about player of same capability. I have played "Defiant Russia" which I like a lot as a game and see russia destroyed in 41 and in another game, the wermach totaly exploded before winter (the Russian took warsaw). This make strating a game always a good experience. What I mean is that the game average the expected result but is not define or driven by them. I think it is good. Which means that we might not reach the expected result with some players matching. We have to kkep that in mind. This is one of those cases where there's two perfectly reasonable ways to approach balancing a wargame like this, and I think I just happen to come down on a different side from you :). My "ideal" game if you will gives both players historical capabilities, even if human players cannot be expected to achieve historical results with them. For players of the same game who wanted a most historical experience, I'd offer an alternate start scenario with modified starting forces. Applying that to WITE, I'd eliminate both the super summer germans and the super winter soviets, even though I'm fully aware that the result would be a very limited blitzkrieg and, likely, a kursk style materialskrieg in 1942 because I think that's the most likely outcome had both sides made good decisions in the actual war. I'd then offer an alternate campaign in which the axis was substantially reinforced for the summer 1941 campaign for those players who wanted to play a scenario with more historical flow.

Senno -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:23:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigAnorak quote: I am still hoping Speedy and BigA will capture enough data for the Devs Turn 27, and we are getting through roughly a turn a day, so middle of next week should see us at the end of the blizzard. Going into the blizzard we have seen differences in the morale and experience levels compared to the pre 1.03 versions. I am seeing a lot of differences to the tests I was doing between June and November last year. Feedback is going back to Joel each turn. Thanks for the update. It's getting harder and harder to argue for a "wait for the data" approach out here.[:D]

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:28:33 PM)
Ever heard the funny Admiral E. J. King's quote "I don't know what the hell this 'logistics' is that Marshall is always talking about, but I want some of it"? Then me, a Soviet player says: "I don't know what the hell this 'blizzard mess' is that everyone is always talking about, but I want some of it! " It has to be some sort or Texas Chainsaw Massacre raised to the power of 3.457! [8D]

Senno -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko So Senno, Alfonso and others, if you wish another blizzard AAR or blizzard experience or whatever, you may ask ACR to take the game over from him and I will be glad to provide several turns of right-clicking for your (dis)pleasure. Or we may continue our game and describe it if ACR is willing to suffer for science (I know I would not be, in case where I play German). Well, I'm with you in that I'd rather make my own mess and clean it up than take on someone else's mess. That's why I don't like to start the '42 campaign on either side. I'd rather improve the position than be stuck with that. So, I'm glad BA checked in, and know that we won't see any changes that aren't well debated in the Dev/Tester forums.... I'm sure you'd make hash of me anyway, even if I got to choose my superman... I wish the Devs would check in though, maybe advise what they might be thinking. But I'm not holding my breath for it.

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:36:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pat.casey Applying that to WITE, I'd eliminate both the super summer germans and the super winter soviets, even though I'm fully aware that the result would be a very limited blitzkrieg and, likely, a kursk style materialskrieg in 1942 because I think that's the most likely outcome had both sides made good decisions in the actual war. I'd then offer an alternate campaign in which the axis was substantially reinforced for the summer 1941 campaign for those players who wanted to play a scenario with more historical flow. I agree with you on both accounts, and I am willing to bet that once the game and community mature, exactly this will be the result, ie the most played best versions, mods, scenarios or whatever.... People hate artificially produced supermanism (lets just remember the outcry about first Japanese turn in WITP, and that was ONE turn in a 1000+ turn game).

Pipewrench -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:46:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch There are a few "what ifs" I would like to see, AAR-wise. 1 - Someone actually do ComradeP's suggestion for a hedgehog/withdrawal defense.� All the AARs I have seen seems to be mostly linear or linebacker 2�- A Feldmarschall Von Robin game, where the Axis retreat at least 2 hexes each turn in Blizzard - this would make an interesting snow if the Panzers are nice and comfortable in urban areas. on your idea and this is out to developers or modders, is it possible to change operation Typhoons end date in the scenerio's menu to give those who want to tinker with winter options a starting benchmark to work with. My thoughts are extending the offensive until mid June. edit if it is to restrictive in scope maybe an agreed benchmark save in the late 41' grand campaign would be helpful. If it is already out there sorry for the wasted post.

alfonso -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 10:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Alfonso, But since you think it is just us, how about posting up some AAR's of your games and show all of us players how it is done. 2ndACR, I cannot defend the Axis side succesfully during blizzard. If I knew how to do it, of course I would gladly show it to everyone. But I thought this lack of success was due to my poor abilities, not to the game being poorly designed. I will be very happy when you prove me wrong. A way to prove me wrong will be to see a good "axis" player being destroyed by many "normal or mediocre" Soviet players: I could offer me in the role of mediocre Soviet player. I think that the game cannot be mastered in 3 months. I cannot prove that either, but it seems more complex than, say, chess. And I concede that, precisely because its complexity, is less likely to be balanced than chess (which is itself unbalanced). But for a chess player, 3 months of experience is nothing...what is wrong about thinking the same with WITE? EDIT: However, if the developers say the game is unbalanced, or that blizzard is unplayable, I of course will be convinced.

Speedysteve -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 11:06:07 PM)
Hi guys, Just to add my 2p. As Bob says we're into our Blizzard now and everything's being tracked. I've only joined the Team post release but I can say this we do care, read, listen and want to make this the best out there. No doubt about it. Taking Blizzard alone it's a tricky thing. There's so much to factor in, track, judge, balance and accommodate from morale, experience, supply, historical factors/data, what to judge with relative under/over performance compared to history etc. A few tweaks here and there can have BIG implications. All I'll say is please be patient. If things need tweaking/fixing they will be. Heck I've been here since 9-11 and loved witp which was great since release. That has evolved and become even more incredible over the years. There's no reason wite won't be the same. We're all passionate about it and IMO it's the best eastern front game out there as is without future development!

Emx77 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 11:13:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso I think that the game cannot be mastered in 3 months. I cannot prove that either, but it seems more complex than, say, chess. And I concede that, precisely because its complexity, is less likely to be balanced than chess (which is itself unbalanced). But for a chess player, 3 months of experience is nothing...what is wrong about thinking the same with WITE? Well, your argument of ultra complex game doesn't hold. Yes, the game is very complex regarding what is happening under the hood. But it is quite manageable for what you, as player, can do and for what you have to care about during play. I find it less complex then Hearts of Iron for example or TOAW. Problem is not that of complexity but rather of flawed mechanics in '41.

alfonso -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 11:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Emir Agic quote: ORIGINAL: alfonso I think that the game cannot be mastered in 3 months. I cannot prove that either, but it seems more complex than, say, chess. And I concede that, precisely because its complexity, is less likely to be balanced than chess (which is itself unbalanced). But for a chess player, 3 months of experience is nothing...what is wrong about thinking the same with WITE? Well, your argument of ultra complex game doesn't hold. Yes, the game is very complex regarding what is happening under the hood. But it is quite manageable for what you, as player, can do and for what you have to care about during play. I find it less complex then Hearts of Iron for example or TOAW. Problem is not that of complexity but rather of flawed mechanics in '41. Do you find this game more complex than chess, or less complex?

Emx77 -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/27/2011 11:51:41 PM)
Alfonso I think you are asking wrong question. Chess have simple rules which are same for whole course of game. In WitE you have sudden changes in rules, and there is a problem. I'm ok with rules but not with rules which balance game besides of what player have achieved to that point. It would be same as if, in a chess game, all your pawns on turn X become queens, bishops, knights and all of my strong figures suddenly becomes pawns.

2ndACR -> RE: Winter Idea......Comment (2/28/2011 12:04:39 AM)
I too will be happy to see someone prove me wrong. I have played strategy games since the C64 days. I have tried every strategy against the AI I can come up with. I played the original WIR for years. Then came WITP, I played the BTR to death when it first was released. But I am more of a land guy. So this game is right up my alley and for that reason, I can get passionate about things. I will concede that I am not the risk taking player, I have a tendency to pull up short or slow my advance to allow rail repair to get closer, I prefer not to take huge risks with my guys. So my advances are short of historical, but also tempering that is my multiple games during blizzard turns. I know what to expect so refuse to go farther than I can defend. I pull up short and start digging (since it does not help, not sure why) and try make sure my guys start the blizzard fully supplied and rested (that does not help so not sure why I do it). 95% of my blizzard games are versus the AI to try different strategies, but the AI is not a human. So if the AI can clobber me 90% of the time, a human will do it almost every time.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.5